The Worse Roman Emperor?

I just read in Tacitus that Nero had fun by dressing up like a criminal, descending upon the city by night-fall and assaulting random people. He attacked one nobleman who struck him in return. The nobleman then recognized who his assailant was and apologized. Unmoved, Nero ordered him to commit suicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I just read in Tacitus that Nero had fun by dressing up like a criminal, descending upon the city by night-fall and assaulting random people. He attacked one nobleman who struck him in return. The nobleman then recognized who his assailant was and apologized. Unmoved, Nero ordered him to commit suicide.

---

This kind of behaviour bears all the signs of insanity. How these individuals got to rule is beyond my comprehension. It is scary to think that these 'emperors' were literally mad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

This kind of behaviour bears all the signs of insanity. How these individuals got to rule is beyond my comprehension. It is scary to think that these 'emperors' were literally mad.

---

No doubt. I kept reading. After that incident Nero formed round himself a bodyguard of soldiers and gladiators who he'd have stand at a close distance while he violently reveled and anyone who got rough with him he'd set this mighty armed entourage upon them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

No doubt. I kept reading. After that incident Nero formed round himself a bodyguard of soldiers and gladiators who he'd have stand at a close distance while he violently reveled and anyone who got rough with him he'd set this mighty armed entourage upon them.

---

wow how spooky is this, glad they are gone they could have lasted the way they were losing the plot.
I am quite not clear on what 'violently reveled' actually mean, I did look it up and it says boisterously having fun..

Honorius is a good candidate for the worst Roman emperor.

He killed the one man who might have prevented the Western Roman empire collapse: His guardian, father-in-law, and principal general Flavius Stilicho. Stilicho provided much-needed stability in the already-declining empire. If he had lived, that might have been just enough to shift the tides... But we shall never know. :(

There's also a funny story about his chicken, that he named ''Rome''.

Anyway...

Valentinian III is another lesser known emperor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia.org

The opinion of most modern historians is that Valentinian not only lacked the ability to govern the empire in a time of crisis, but aggravated its dangers by his self-indulgence and vindictiveness.

---

He killed a very good General too, in a fit of jealous rage.


I consider any Emperor that actually affected the Empire to be the best candidates. The most popularly cited, and terrible persons as they were, did not generally make a significant impact.

Caligula didn't really mess up the Empire in any real way. Nero didn't really burn down Rome. Based upon their debauchery, and immoral behaviour, these aren't, in my opinion, true reasons to put them up as the worst. There were very few Roman emperors that were moral.

I think it's their administration, the allocation of resources, etc. of the Empire that should measure whether a King, or Emperor, is the worst or not.

Quote:

---

=BookBeauty;1121344]Honorius is a good candidate for the worst Roman emperor.

---

Never heard of him, for a name such as Honorius whoever he was he obviously did not live up to his Honorius name.
Big words and nothing to back them up with.

Quote:

---

He killed the one man who might have prevented the Western Roman empire collapse: His guardian, father-in-law, and principal general Flavius Stilicho. Stilicho provided much-needed stability in the already-declining empire. If he had lived, that might have been just enough to shift the tides... But we shall never know. :(

---

I personally would not think they would have lasted more then they have, they had gone too far and had too many on their hands, such as empires outside Rome.
Ruling outside your own city leads to debauchery corruption treason and ultimately destruction. They bit more then they could chew.

Quote:

---

There's also a funny story about his chicken, that he named ''Rome''.

---

What it this chicken story about (not the chicken and the egg story I hope:svengo:)

Quote:

---

Valentinian III is another lesser known emperor.



He killed a very good General too, in a fit of jealous rage.

---

Fits, I agree, they had many. Never heard of him either.

Quote:

---

Caligula didn't really mess up the Empire in any real way. Nero didn't really burn down Rome. Based upon their debauchery, and immoral behaviour,

---

No you are right but one can say that they did it to themselves rather then to Rome. The city still stands today, they have gone. The proof is in the story.

Quote:

---

these aren't, in my opinion, true reasons to put them up as the worst.

---

May be you are right, 'the worst' is propably the wrong expression, but a more appropriate term,something like 'notoriously inept and absurd failure was their only option' would make a better description.

Quote:

---

There were very few Roman emperors that were moral.

---

I read that there were very few roman emperor that were 'normal' hehe:biggrin5:

I think the most sadly underrated Emperor ,whose mission to stop the insidious tide of Christianity unhappily failed, was Julian the Apostate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I just read in Tacitus that Nero had fun by dressing up like a criminal, descending upon the city by night-fall and assaulting random people. He attacked one nobleman who struck him in return. The nobleman then recognized who his assailant was and apologized. Unmoved, Nero ordered him to commit suicide.

---

Is that form the Annals? I was considering rereading Suetonius, but that sounds tempting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I just read in Tacitus that Nero had fun by dressing up like a criminal, descending upon the city by night-fall and assaulting random people. He attacked one nobleman who struck him in return. The nobleman then recognized who his assailant was and apologized. [/QUOTE
Unmoved, Nero ordered him to commit suicide.

---

I would propably say that he ordered him to kill himself rather then commit suicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

I would propably say that he ordered him to kill himself rather then commit suicide.

---

What's the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by /dev/null

Is that form the Annals? I was considering rereading Suetonius, but that sounds tempting.

---

Yeah its from the Annals. Its pretty good. I really much prefer earlier Roman history, the Punic wars up to the late Republic, but imperial Rome is still interesting. Before you read Tacitus I would urge to you read Livy if you haven't already. He might be my favourite ancient historian of all, excepting maybe Thucydides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

What's the difference?

---

Hi Darcy

The way I see the difference is this:

one can kill themselves in many different ways:
one is by accident
one is by fighting like gladiators did they fought till one of them died
and
one can kill themselves by being told they have to like in this case.

to commit suicide is a one way decision it comes from the person themselves because of unknown/hopeless circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Hi Darcy

The way I see the difference is this:

one can kill themselves in many different ways:
one is by accident
one is by fighting like gladiators did they fought till one of them died
and
one can kill themselves by being told they have to like in this case.

to commit suicide is a one way decision it comes from the person themselves because of unknown/hopeless circumstances.

---

That's one way of looking at it. I think both ways are correct though.

No Roman emperor was inmoral or amoral, which is an impossibility. But the nature of the Roman Empire was based strictly on Protagorian, sophist ethics. Those ethics prescribed that the only justified behavior was to proceed in self interest with enduring strength. It was the insitution of the law of the fittest. Check the Protagorian position thouroughly and what happened when the Greek agrarian states became city states ruled by the nouveau rich, who were eventually educated by the sophists. Undestand the roots of moral sophistry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Yeah its from the Annals. Its pretty good. I really much prefer earlier Roman history, the Punic wars up to the late Republic, but imperial Rome is still interesting. Before you read Tacitus I would urge to you read Livy if you haven't already. He might be my favourite ancient historian of all, excepting maybe Thucydides.

---

Livy then. Any recomendation on early roman history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by /dev/null

Livy then. Any recomendation on early roman history?

---

Oh yeah. Penguin has out a book of Livy called The Early History of Rome. Its enthralling. It hammers home what politics was and is fundamentally about. A great read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

No Roman emperor was inmoral or amoral, which is an impossibility. But the nature of the Roman Empire was based strictly on Protagorian, sophist ethics. Those ethics prescribed that the only justified behavior was to proceed in self interest with enduring strength. It was the insitution of the law of the fittest. Check the Protagorian position thouroughly and what happened when the Greek agrarian states became city states ruled by the nouveau rich, who were eventually educated by the sophists. Undestand the roots of moral sophistry.

---

the point here is this:
does anyone needs education when it comes to knowing right from wrong?
Unless of course one is saying one is not very bright which in this case one needs to taught that killing or massacres is wrong.
I find that quite debiliating as a fact if it was true about the sophists educating emperors. What next? educating presidents would be next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

This kind of behaviour bears all the signs of insanity. How these individuals got to rule is beyond my comprehension. It is scary to think that these 'emperors' were literally mad.

---

But just because x and y are collarated doesnt mean that one causes the other. Maybe it is just the absolute power which comes along which the position of emperor which makes most of them mad.

Im not saying what I said is ture, but it is interesting as a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

But just because x and y are collarated doesnt mean that one causes the other. Maybe it is just the absolute power which comes along which the position of emperor which makes most of them mad.

Im not saying what I said is ture, but it is interesting as a thought.

---

I think what you say here is definitely true to a large degree. A person with cruel impulses who is humble and must in order to get on with co-workers and members of the opposite sex wear a mask of affability is not going to indulge his sadistic "evil" desires as he would were he in a position of absolute power.

But I do not agree with the old saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Solon was not corrupt. Marcus Aurelius I don't think was corrupt. A good man in a position of power might very well remain, despite his high authority, a good man.

Nero the mason or Nero the blacksmith may not have been as wicked a man as Nero the emperor.

And dev null. I said Livy is my favorite ancient historian. I kick myself now for saying that when it is in fact Plutarch who is far and away my definite fav. I'm reading a book of his lives now, short biographies of the leading men of Greece, Macedonia and Rome. Just read the one on the Macedonian King and general Demetrius. One of the most entertaining eye-popping things my eyes have ever been delighted to behold. Now I'm reading one on the great Roman statesman Camillus. It covers the sack of Rome by the Gauls and is full of incidents almost too perfectly dramatic and action-packed to have actually gone down.

One could gain a decent knowledge of all Greek, Hellenistic and Roman history by reading all of Plutarch's lives. And it sure ain't as tedious as Polybius or some other ancient historians. Its like it was written by a Hollywood screen-writer with a golden muse-blessed pen.

Plutarch was Shakespeare's main source for Roman history, for some of his plays like Antony and Cleopatra, if I remember correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Nero the mason or Nero the blacksmith may not have been as wicked a man as Nero the emperor.

---

I fully agree with that one. Specialization did a lot for progres not only on the tecnical side but also on the elimination of natural stupidity regarding the ability to rule and how much.

I don't know...I have heard a lot of things about those "masons"... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

But just because x and y are collarated doesnt mean that one causes the other. Maybe it is just the absolute power which comes along which the position of emperor which makes most of them mad.

Im not saying what I said is ture, but it is interesting as a thought.

---

Interesting thought and yes you have touched on something quite eye opening.
But thenI I compare them to the nazis for example
They were so many of them who did comply and so quickly became adapted the role of a nazi and worshipped an insane dicatator They did not have any problems carrying on the atrocities they did.
The question here that begs asking is this:
Were they already insane, because atrocities can only explained via maddness, a mental disability I call it, and by their thousands and did they just happened to tap on the right opportunity to pratice their insane evileness or was it the war that turned them evil?
I am more likely to believe they were already insane and evil.
The same would apply to roman emperors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

The question here that begs asking is this:
Were they already insane, because atrocities can only explained via maddness, a mental disability I call it, and by their thousands and did they just happened to tap on the right opportunity to pratice their insane evileness or was it the war that turned them evil?
I am more likely to believe they were already insane and evil.
The same would apply to roman emperors.

---

So a huge percent of governors from antiquity to this day happen to suffer severe mental disorders. Is that your theory, that mankind just has bad luck?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

And dev null. I said Livy is my favorite ancient historian. I kick myself now for saying that when it is in fact Plutarch who is far and away my definite fav.

---

Uhm, I like the "one of us one of them" structure. I'm definitely looking for it at the library tomorrow. First volume, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

the point here is this:
does anyone needs education when it comes to knowing right from wrong?
Unless of course one is saying one is not very bright which in this case one needs to taught that killing or massacres is wrong.
I find that quite debiliating as a fact if it was true about the sophists educating emperors. What next? educating presidents would be next.

---

You have to also consider the effect of Platonism, before the sophistry. Platonism substituted the idea of right or wrong with an inflexible point of view where any expression of nature was divorced from reality at least one step. In the case of art, it was two steps. First, the natural separation of Idea (latter essence) and manifestation. Then the separation of art which, by not being directed by The State, was degenerate (the Nazi's tried that one also, more than 2000 years later). Morality (the individual's sense of good and bad) was destroyed a-priori and then reconstructed under intimidation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

You have to also consider the effect of Platonism, before the sophistry. Platonism substituted the idea of right or wrong with an inflexible point of view where any expression of nature was divorced from reality at least one step. In the case of art, it was two steps. First, the natural separation of Idea (latter essence) and manifestation. Then the separation of art which, by not being directed by The State, was degenerate (the Nazi's tried that one also, more than 2000 years later). Morality (the individual's sense of good and bad) was destroyed a-priori and then reconstructed under intimidation.

---

This actually makes a lot of sense Caf.

I agree. People will act in the most savage ways under intimidation- it weakens any individuals ability to function morally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by /dev/null

So a huge percent of governors from antiquity to this day happen to suffer severe mental disorders. Is that your theory, that mankind just has bad luck?

---

Hi dev/null
What I mean that these individuals are prone to evileness,that they are already predisposed, awaiting for the right opportunity to flair up if you like.
Dormant until awaken is another expression for it.
Some have it in them, the minority, and some, the majority don't.
How else would you explain their evileness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Hi dev/null
What I mean that these individuals are prone to evileness,that they are already predisposed, awaiting for the right opportunity to flair up if you like.
Dormant until awaken is another expression for it.
Some have it in them, the minority, and some, the majority don't.
How else would you explain their evileness?

---

I'm afraid human beings are predisposed to evilness. Power is just a catalyst. (Note: I don't exactly mean naturally evil, but evil by means of social/cultural conditioning.)